PUTNEY — First, I'll thank Edward Morris for writing, in his reply to Joyce Marcel's recent column [“The despicable patriarchy is rising again,” June 29], that he will be voting after recently moving here.
Everyone who is of voting age should want to vote. It is not only a right given to us by the Constitution but for me also an obligation. As my dad told me back when I was protesting the Vietnam War, “It is all fine and well, this protesting you do, but if you want to protest, it is also your obligation to vote in every election.” And I have taken that seriously - even voting for the local fence viewers.
But I do wonder where his certainty comes from “that the energy of many Vermonters protesting [the overturning of Roe v. Wade] is wasted because we know abortion rights are going nowhere in Vermont.”
In the past, Vermont has been widely perceived as a state where folks have a “you-do-you-and-I'll-do-me” attitude. But given the political climate of this country and the election in 2016, it seems that nothing is certain any longer except that all the previous norms around conducting government business have been thrown out the window.
As a result, this election already has a few anti-choice people running for seats in state government.
Second, I am wondering why he feels “overturning of Roe v. Wade was probably the right decision” as far as the U.S. Constitution goes but why it would be good to include in a state constitution. Should individual states' rights supersede a federal right in the case of something that affects women no matter where they live? In this case, we are talking about millions of women in the country who the overturning of Roe v. Wade will affect.
Third, Edward Morris says that if Roe v. Wade was wrongly repealed in the U.S. Constitution that Vermont should add “a constitutionally invented right to brothels “ in our state. Seriously - I am curious as to the connection in his mind between the two. Call me naïve, but it seems that brothels and the right to women having health care are apples and oranges. Where did this little titillating nonsequitur come from?
And last, I know that most of us women in Vermont would be pleased to hear he supports Proposal 5, also known as Article 22. But his language leaves me to wonder if he really does.
He states that this referendum question, which hopefully will become part of the Vermont Constitution, will “benefit Vermont through the opening of new abortion mills here for out-of-staters.” Abortion mills?
This phrase brings to mind “puppy mills,” which is generally not a favorable description.
It is obvious that most of his response seems to concentrate on his independence as a voter. I became a nonpartisan when in 2001 our wonderful senator, Jim Jeffords, left the GOP and became independent. There is much to be said for diversity and more choice. But I don't really see the tie in between corrupt oligarchs and a woman's right to abortion.
So I am left wondering about the true intent of his piece.